OWH: What Recruiting Says About Husker Offense

[wanderful]

A lot of battles against other blue bloods? NU has 3 verbals right now, correct?

What I mean is that we seem to be winning recruits that are also being seriously targeted by Alabama, tOSU, Clemson, etc. The last few years of the previous regime, the players we were getting seemed to be targeted by (pulling out random schools here) BC, USF, Temple, ISU, etc.

I'd love to see that actual analysis, though I also have doubts about the validity of many offer lists.

I have buddies who are assistants at 4 different DI schools and they chuckle about the supposed offers out to kids they haven't even head of, not to mention the "noncommitable" offers that shouldn't even be counted.

Yeah, it's a very un-transparent area, and I don't think we're going to get any more clarity there anytime soon, unfortunately.

 

[SuperBigFan69]

I have a buddy that teaching high school PE at a crappy "inner city school" and all the kids say they are getting offers from this school and that school...it is crazy funny

 

[ScottyIce]

I have a buddy that teaching high school PE at a crappy "inner city school" and all the kids say they are getting offers from this school and that school...it is crazy funny

Hey, I'm not your buddy!

 

[stargazer]

When considering those recruiting rankings over time, keep in mind, the further separated each class of these kids are from memory of the 'Nebraska golden age', the tougher it is to sell them on coming to flat, frigid, flyover country to play football. Each successive staff has an incrementally tougher job. We need to start winning some division/conference titles. I commend Riley/company on some impressive recruiting wins.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

We need good players at every position, like most good football teams.

 

[HuskerNation1]

I hope nobody thinks the UCLA game was a true blue print of how we will play moving forward.

We will run a bit more but it will be mostly a product of a better passing game and 1 main RB.

Well Riley has been very clear that he wants to be in the top 3 in rushing in the league, so I don't believe the UCLA outcome was a fluke. I think he realizes that to be the head coach at NU, and to compete in the Big Ten, a strong rushing attack is necessary. Now NU could still be in the top 3 in rushing AND pass a lot if they average over 500 yards a game, which is not unthinkable. Also, with all the speed and talent we have at wideout, we can gain 20% of our rushing yards in each game using the wideouts (jet sweep). I know NU did not do as well as the jet sweep last year, but I think with more practice they can improve.

 

[zoogs]

I don't agree with Dirk's premise. That is, I don't think Wisconsin says "We're going to run the ball a lot so we're only going to recruit three-star receivers." You always recruit the best WRs you can get. You just have a lot better chance of landing them with a passing offense.

However, I do think he's correct that we want to throw the ball a lot. And we're selling WR and QB recruits on that.

The big question is how effective will that offense be. As you know, I don't think it will be very effective - in fact, detrimental - with TA under center. I'm more hopeful with POB going forward. We'll see.

I agree with this. As for TA being under center, we'll find out. The recruits certainly won't impact the offense under him this season. However, the extent to which Nebraska has reliable RB talent remains to be seen. Will Ozigbo build upon UCLA? How do we replace Jano? Will Newby assert himself as more, will Wilbon or Trey Bryant make a charge, etc.

Tommy's mistake prone, and that has to get fixed, but he can also only run the ball himself so much in a game. And he's in an offense with some of the more dangerous and established receivers in the B1G now.

 

[Redux]

I hope nobody thinks the UCLA game was a true blue print of how we will play moving forward.

We will run a bit more but it will be mostly a product of a better passing game and 1 main RB.

Well Riley has been very clear that he wants to be in the top 3 in rushing in the league, so I don't believe the UCLA outcome was a fluke. I think he realizes that to be the head coach at NU, and to compete in the Big Ten, a strong rushing attack is necessary. Now NU could still be in the top 3 in rushing AND pass a lot if they average over 500 yards a game, which is not unthinkable. Also, with all the speed and talent we have at wideout, we can gain 20% of our rushing yards in each game using the wideouts (jet sweep). I know NU did not do as well as the jet sweep last year, but I think with more practice they can improve.

Part of him saying that is true and part is coach speak. He understands better now how vital the rush is in this league and how important it is to the culture here.

But, understand that the desired rushing he is striving for will be achieved through a more consistent passing game that allows us to run more AND through 1 main RB, not a committee.

UCLA wasn't a "fluke", but it wasn't thr blueprint either.

 

[JJ Husker]

We need good players at every position, like most good football teams.

Well this is just....just.....just crazy talk.

 

[Redux]

I think focusing on the pass first is a mistake at Nebraska, and will be Riley's undoing like BC for a couple of reasons

1) it's not the culture here, and the fan base has very little patience for it if you are not winning. Husker fans want to win, so if you are doing that, life is good. But, if you aren't winning while playing a style that doesn't fit the Husker fans' eyes, you have a short leash.

2) weather. You are going to play games it crappy weather in the B1G, that's just part of the deal. If your offense is based on a finesse air game, you will get in trouble

3) recruits. A sustained dynamic passing attack requires many elite players at the skill positions. Those are the players that schools in the Midwest have a tougher time getting on a regular basis. Our natural recruiting area is filled with cornfed bruisers that can move the pile, but not speedsters. Can we get some every now and then? Sure. But, places like Oregon, Clemson, USC, etc. can stock pile 20 of them on their team. If only 5 of those guys work out, they are in great shape. If we only have 5 on our team, we need every single one to pan out.

I really think we need to go the MSU/Stanford route. Through our entire offensive recruiting force around developing a dominant rushing attack. We can do that with Midwest guys. Then, build an efficient passing game around that. Does not need to be dominant.

But, I digress. I do like that Riley has a plan and is sticking to it. I just happen to disagree with the plan.

The Callahan comparissons are only fair when it comes to scheme. Riley is by far a stronger collegiate coach
1) The whole mythos that you HAVE to run to be successful here is just silly. I believe the opposite to be true. If we want to remain average forever then we should never adapt. But growing our traditions is what makes us look more attractive to recruits.

2) Lesson was learned in Illinois last year hopefully.

3) We literally just laned a highly coveted Cali kid at WR....yesterday. Just because everyone is more comfortable recruiting RB's out of Texas doesn't make it a better move.

The staff has their own system in mind and it was not easy to install here. We will see it be more fluent this year. So before denouncing the pro style, lets see where it goes.

 

[cm husker]

I don't agree with Dirk's premise. That is, I don't think Wisconsin says "We're going to run the ball a lot so we're only going to recruit three-star receivers." You always recruit the best WRs you can get. You just have a lot better chance of landing them with a passing offense.

However, I do think he's correct that we want to throw the ball a lot. And we're selling WR and QB recruits on that.

The big question is how effective will that offense be. As you know, I don't think it will be very effective - in fact, detrimental - with TA under center. I'm more hopeful with POB going forward. We'll see.

I agree with this. As for TA being under center, we'll find out. The recruits certainly won't impact the offense under him this season. However, the extent to which Nebraska has reliable RB talent remains to be seen. Will Ozigbo build upon UCLA? How do we replace Jano? Will Newby assert himself as more, will Wilbon or Trey Bryant make a charge, etc.

Tommy's mistake prone, and that has to get fixed, but he can also only run the ball himself so much in a game. And he's in an offense with some of the more dangerous and established receivers in the B1G now.

I'm tired of people blaming Tommy for being mistake prone. Among Riley's first year starters, TA has one of the best td to int and int per attempt ratios.

Did he make mistakes last year? Yes. Were they the same mistakes at the same or a lower frequency that most of Riley's QBs have made them? Yes.

So maybe it's not just a "we need someone less mistake prone" issue.

 

[Stumpy1]

I don't agree with Dirk's premise. That is, I don't think Wisconsin says "We're going to run the ball a lot so we're only going to recruit three-star receivers." You always recruit the best WRs you can get. You just have a lot better chance of landing them with a passing offense.

However, I do think he's correct that we want to throw the ball a lot. And we're selling WR and QB recruits on that.

The big question is how effective will that offense be. As you know, I don't think it will be very effective - in fact, detrimental - with TA under center. I'm more hopeful with POB going forward. We'll see.

I agree with this. As for TA being under center, we'll find out. The recruits certainly won't impact the offense under him this season. However, the extent to which Nebraska has reliable RB talent remains to be seen. Will Ozigbo build upon UCLA? How do we replace Jano? Will Newby assert himself as more, will Wilbon or Trey Bryant make a charge, etc.

Tommy's mistake prone, and that has to get fixed, but he can also only run the ball himself so much in a game. And he's in an offense with some of the more dangerous and established receivers in the B1G now.

I'm tired of people blaming Tommy for being mistake prone. Among Riley's first year starters, TA has one of the best td to int and int per attempt ratios.

Did he make mistakes last year? Yes. Were they the same mistakes at the same or a lower frequency that most of Riley's QBs have made them? Yes.

So maybe it's not just a "we need someone less mistake prone" issue.

TA made the same mistakes under the last staff also.

 

[The Dude]

I think focusing on the pass first is a mistake at Nebraska, and will be Riley's undoing like BC for a couple of reasons

1) it's not the culture here, and the fan base has very little patience for it if you are not winning. Husker fans want to win, so if you are doing that, life is good. But, if you aren't winning while playing a style that doesn't fit the Husker fans' eyes, you have a short leash.

2) weather. You are going to play games it crappy weather in the B1G, that's just part of the deal. If your offense is based on a finesse air game, you will get in trouble

3) recruits. A sustained dynamic passing attack requires many elite players at the skill positions. Those are the players that schools in the Midwest have a tougher time getting on a regular basis. Our natural recruiting area is filled with cornfed bruisers that can move the pile, but not speedsters. Can we get some every now and then? Sure. But, places like Oregon, Clemson, USC, etc. can stock pile 20 of them on their team. If only 5 of those guys work out, they are in great shape. If we only have 5 on our team, we need every single one to pan out.

I really think we need to go the MSU/Stanford route. Through our entire offensive recruiting force around developing a dominant rushing attack. We can do that with Midwest guys. Then, build an efficient passing game around that. Does not need to be dominant.

But, I digress. I do like that Riley has a plan and is sticking to it. I just happen to disagree with the plan.

The Callahan comparissons are only fair when it comes to scheme. Riley is by far a stronger collegiate coach

1) The whole mythos that you HAVE to run to be successful here is just silly. I believe the opposite to be true. If we want to remain average forever then we should never adapt. But growing our traditions is what makes us look more attractive to recruits.

2) Lesson was learned in Illinois last year hopefully.

3) We literally just laned a highly coveted Cali kid at WR....yesterday. Just because everyone is more comfortable recruiting RB's out of Texas doesn't make it a better move.

The staff has their own system in mind and it was not easy to install here. We will see it be more fluent this year. So before denouncing the oro style, lets see where it goes.

My personal preference is definitely run-heavy. But if we start competing nationally again throwing the ball 70%, then so be it.

 

[Enhance]

There was a great discussion on this in the recruiting board and I'm not going to rehash this now.

I'm looking at the quality of players. Our average player rating has gone up. And, if you look at the ones we have good interest from for next year it's even better ( I know looking at next year is a crap shoot).

However, Last year's average player rating was higher than we have had in years. The class rank takes into account number of commits. A prime example of this is the highly taught 2011 class. It came in with 32 players but the average player rating was much lower than last year's class. In hind site, that wasn't really that good of a class. If you simply look at the OLine, the last year or two has taken a big jump.

Again, I'm not going to rehash this again. If you choose to ignore it and don't agree....I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise.

Good point.

I do have a concern with the way people are viewing the program's two most recent highly touted recruits - POB and KJJ. People act as if this now means we're turning towards an air raid offense and will chuck the ball around 65-70 percent of the time. It doesn't mean that at all. In fact, dating back to 2003, a Riley offense's highest throwing percentage was 63 percent in 2013. Otherwise, he's shown quite a bit of balance, historically. From 2006 to 2010, he had four seasons of running the ball more than he passed.

And as I mentioned in another thread, having great skill position players does not mean we can't have a great running game. Similarly, having a throwing quarterback doesn't mean we can't have a great running game. Offensive line/running back development will play a big role here.

And, to harken back to another thread, I'm not sure why people keep putting so much emphasis on the offense and what that says about our success. I'm far more concerned about our defensive acumen. The best teams Nebraska has in the last 10 years had really good-to-great defenses.

 

[Redux]

I think focusing on the pass first is a mistake at Nebraska, and will be Riley's undoing like BC for a couple of reasons

1) it's not the culture here, and the fan base has very little patience for it if you are not winning. Husker fans want to win, so if you are doing that, life is good. But, if you aren't winning while playing a style that doesn't fit the Husker fans' eyes, you have a short leash.

2) weather. You are going to play games it crappy weather in the B1G, that's just part of the deal. If your offense is based on a finesse air game, you will get in trouble

3) recruits. A sustained dynamic passing attack requires many elite players at the skill positions. Those are the players that schools in the Midwest have a tougher time getting on a regular basis. Our natural recruiting area is filled with cornfed bruisers that can move the pile, but not speedsters. Can we get some every now and then? Sure. But, places like Oregon, Clemson, USC, etc. can stock pile 20 of them on their team. If only 5 of those guys work out, they are in great shape. If we only have 5 on our team, we need every single one to pan out.

I really think we need to go the MSU/Stanford route. Through our entire offensive recruiting force around developing a dominant rushing attack. We can do that with Midwest guys. Then, build an efficient passing game around that. Does not need to be dominant.

But, I digress. I do like that Riley has a plan and is sticking to it. I just happen to disagree with the plan.

The Callahan comparissons are only fair when it comes to scheme. Riley is by far a stronger collegiate coach1) The whole mythos that you HAVE to run to be successful here is just silly. I believe the opposite to be true. If we want to remain average forever then we should never adapt. But growing our traditions is what makes us look more attractive to recruits.

2) Lesson was learned in Illinois last year hopefully.

3) We literally just laned a highly coveted Cali kid at WR....yesterday. Just because everyone is more comfortable recruiting RB's out of Texas doesn't make it a better move.

The staff has their own system in mind and it was not easy to install here. We will see it be more fluent this year. So before denouncing the oro style, lets see where it goes.

My personal preference is definitely run-heavy. But if we start competing nationally again throwing the ball 70%, then so be it.

I think most of us would prefer the run heavy scheme. But yeah, if we are beating people and looking good doing it nobody will care. I think that could be a real scenario.